Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 102 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6573 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
5 month(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
25-07-2023
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
A
Next Hearing Date
12-07-2023
Assessment Year
2019-2020
Appeal Filed On
20-02-2023
Judgement Text
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,च डीगढ़ यायपीठ “ए” , च डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH ी आकाश द प जैन, उपा य एवं ी #व$म &संह यादव, लेखा सद+य BEFORE: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 86 to 92/Chd/ 2023 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2013-14 to 2019-20 M/s Ludhiana Construction Pvt. Ltd. H.No. 168, Sector 8. Chandigarh बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-II, Chandigarh थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACL6600L अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent नधा रती क! ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज व क! ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT D.R स ु नवाई क! तार&ख/Date of Hearing : 13/07/2023 उदघोषणा क! तार&ख/Date of Pronouncement : 26/07/2023 आदेश/Order PER BENCH : These are seven appeals filed by the Assessee against the respective orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon each dt. 27/12/2022 pertaining to A.Y’s 2013- 14 to 2019-20. 2. Since the issues involved in all the appeals were similar, they were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the purpose of convenience. 3. With the consent of both the parties, the case of the Assessee in ITA No. 86/Chd/2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14 was taken as the lead case wherein the grounds of appeal read as under: 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming addition of Rs. 7,29,223/-. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming addition of Rs. 7,29,223/- made on account of application of 13% of NP on Gross amounts of work done in respect of cash purchases against declared NP of 10% by assessee on such receipts while filing revised return before AO. (NP of 10% declared in revised return on work done as per audited books of account is already accepted by learned CIT(Appeals)) 2 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee engaged in the business of the civil construction had filed its return of income under section 139 on 22/10/2013 declaring total income of Rs. 40,34,600/-. Subsequently, search and seizure operation under section 132(1) were carried out at the business premises of the assessee and thereafter notice under section 153A was issued to the assessee on 15/11/2019. In response to the notice under section 153A, the assessee has filed its return of income on 16/03/2020 declaring total income of Rs. 40,34,600/- as declared in the original return of income. Thereafter, on 30/03/2021, the assessee revised its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 1,08,44,600/- wherein the assessee made a disclosure of additional income of Rs. 68,10,000/-. Subsequently, notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and thereafter after considering the submission filed by the assessee, a show cause dated 12/04/2021 was issued to the assessee and the relevant contents thereof read as under: “4. Perusal of your revised computation / ITR furnished by the assessee company reveals that the assessee company has now disclosed net profit @ 10% on the gross receipts shown by you. Perusal of affairs of the assessee company reveals that the assessee company has shown large quantum of receipts in cash. Further, the substantial part of this cash receipts have not been routed through the trading and P&L account of the assessee company. Further, it has been admitted by the assessee company that complete bills and vouchers of expenses, which have been claimed to be incurred by the site owner directly, are not maintained with the assessee company. Therefore, the genuineness and allowability of these expenses vis-a-vis provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act are not open to verification. Further, site-wise position of stock has not been maintained by the assessee company, hence, the trading results shown by the assessee company is not very reliable. Further, your rate of margin is 15-20% in most of the cases. Therefore, considering all facts and circumstances of the case, you are hereby required to showcause as to why the trading results shown by you in your books of accounts should not be rejected as per provisions of section 145(3) of the Act and showcause as to why the income of the assessee company may not be assessed by applying net profit rate of 15% on the gross turnover of the assessee company.” 5. In response to the show cause, the assessee filed its written submission on 20/04/2021 which were considered but not found fully acceptable to the AO and the trading result shown by the assessee company were rejected invoking provisions of Section 145(3) of the Act and profit rate of 13% was determined as against 10% shown by the assessee and an addition of Rs. 32,52,441/- was 3 made. The relevant findings of the AO are contained in para 7.1 & 7.2 and 8 of the assessment order and the same reads as under: “7.1 Further, the books of accounts of the assessee were produced for examination, which were examined on test check basis. On perusal of books of accounts of the assessee company reveals that the assessee company has shown large quantum of receipts in cash. Further, the substantial parts of these cash receipts have not been routed through the trading and P&L account of the assessee company. Further, it has been admitted by the Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee company that complete bills and vouchers of expenses, which have been claimed to be incurred by the site owner directly, are not maintained with the assessee company and therefore, these bills and vouchers are not available for verification. Thus, the genuineness and allowability of these expenses, which have not been routed through the P&L account of the assessee company, vis-a-vis provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act are not open to verification. Further, site-wise position of stock has not been maintained by the assessee company, hence, the trading results shown by the assessee company are not reliable. Therefore, after considering all facts and circumstances of the case, the trading results shown by the assessee company in its audited books of accounts are hereby rejected as per provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. 7.2 The assessee has shown profit rate of 10% in the revised ITR filed by the assessee company on 30.03.2021 on the gross work done by the assessee company after including the amount of cash component mentioned in column 'Outstanding CS' in the receipt accounts. Further, it has been observed that the assessee company has charged profit margin of 10% to 20% on the work done by it as per the seized material found during search. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the profit rate of 10% disclosed by the assessee company in its revised ITR filed on 30.03.2021 is not reasonable. Therefore, vide order sheet entry dated 12.04.2021, the assessee company was required to show cause as to why the income of the assessee company may not be assessed by applying net profit rate of 15% on the gross work done by the assessee company. In response to the query, detailed reply has been submitted by the assessee company on 20.04.2021, which is placed on record. Perusal of the reply of the assessee company reveals that the assessee has claimed profit margin of 10%, 15% and 20% on different projects undertaken by it. Further, the assessee company has submitted that on profit margin of 10%, its effective profit rate comes to 9.09%; on profit margin of 15% its effective profit rate comes to 13.04% and on profit margin of 20% its effective profit rate comes to 16.67%. Further, the assessee company has submitted that if the average of all these three profit rates is considered, the effective average net profit rates) comes to 12.93%. The reply of the assessee company has been gone through and the same has been found partly convincing. Since, the project wise complete details of profit margin taken by the assessee is not fully verifiable from the books of accounts or the seized material, the net profit margin rate of 13%, is hereby taken in this order on the gross work done by the assessee company to determined the profit of the assessee from its business. Since the books of accounts of the assessee have been rejected, thus no further benefit of any expenses is given to the assessee. 8. The assessee company has taken the total work done of Rs. 10,84,14,721/- during the year under consideration and has shown profit margin of Rs. 1,08,41,472/- thereupon at the net rate of 10% on this work done in the revised returns filed by it u/s 153A of the Act dated 30.03.2021. Therefore, as discussed above, net profit margin rate of 13% as determined above supra is applied on this total work done of Rs. 10,84,14,721/- shown by the assessee company in its revised return of income during the year under consideration, which comes to Rs. 1,40,93,913/-. Therefore, after considering all facts and circumstances of the case, an addition of Rs. 32,52,441/- (Rs. 1,40,93,913 - Rs. 1,08,41,472) is made to the income of the assessee over.and above the income disclosed by the assessee in its revised ITR filed u/s 4 153A of the Act dated 30.03.2021. Penalty proceedings, u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is hereby initiated on this issue for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 6. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the assessee submitted that AO did not compute the net profit correctly and has applied 13% gross profit without allowing deduction for indirect expenses. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the addition of Rs. 32,52,441/- made by the AO was restricted to Rs. 7,29,223/- and the balance addition was deleted and the relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are contained in para 5 of the impugned order and the contents thereof reads as under: “5. The facts of the case and material on record have been gone through. As per the assessment order, the appellant is working as a civil contractor wherein he undertakes civil construction of residential houses for various clients as per their specifications. On the perusal of seized document it has been clearly brought on record that the appellant has received contract receipts partly through cheque which are recorded in books of account and partly in cash which are not recorded in the books of accounts. The AO has quantified total contract receipts for the year under consideration at Rs. 10,84,14,721/- as against Rs. 8,41,07,284/- as recorded in the books of accounts. Thus there were unaccounted receipts of Rs.2,43,07,437/-. The appellant in its return of income furnished on 30.03.2021 in response to notice u/s 153A has disclosed net profit of Rs. 1,08,44,596/- @ 10% of total construction receipts of Rs. 10,84,14,271/-. The appellant in the above grounds of appeal has not disputed the above quantification of total contract receipts. Thus there is no difference between the quantification of total contract receipts between the AO and the appellant. Therefore the only issue to be adjudicated is net profit rate to be applied on total contract receipts. The AO has applied net profit rate of 13% as against 10% adopted by the appellant. From the perusal of assessment order as discussed by the AO, it is evident that the appellant has earned margin @ 10-20% of the total cost of project from different projects undertaken for different clients depending upon specification of project undertaken. Thus the gross margin rate of the total contract receipts which was earned by the appellant needs to be worked out; for example if the the cost of construction is Rs. 100/- resulting into margin Rs.l0/-(@ 10%) and total receivable from such project would be Rs. 110/- resulting into gross profit margin ratio @ 9.09%(10/110). Similarly where margin is in range of 15%, the gross margin would be 13.04%( 15/115) and in case margin is 20% gross margin would be 16.67% (20/120)). If average of these gross margins is taken, it would work out average gross margin @12.93% or roughly 13%. Thus as per the contracts with the clients, the appellant was earning gross profit margin in the range of 13% of total project receipts . However it was the only net margin earned on the total contract receipts which was to be taxed after reducing indirect expense. In, order to compute net profit, indirect expenses or indirect costs have to be reduced from the gross profit. During the year the appellant has incurred indirect expenses of Rs. 1,03,51,418/- as evident from the audited books of account, genuineness of the same has not been doubted by the AO. After reducing such indirect expenses from gross margin of 13% , net profit rate for the year under consideration would work out to be 3.45%. However the appellant has declared net profit rate of 10% in respect of total contract expenses as against 13% applied by the AO. 5 There are 2 component of total construction receipt of Rs. 10,84,14,271/- in this case - contract receipts of Rs. 8,41,07,284/- as disclosed in the audited books of accounts and remaining contract receipts of Rs.2,43,07,440/- received in cash which are not part of books of accounts and are recorded in the seized documents. The appellant has debited indirect expenses (Rs. 1,03,51,418/-) in the books of accounts further out of gross profit @ 13% . Thus the AO was not justified in not allowing indirect expenses from such gross profit rate in respect of contract receipts as per books of account. The AO has not disputed genuineness indirect expenses as debited in the books of accounts. Therefore on such fact it is held that the appellant was justified in estimating the net profit @ 10% on account of contract receipts disclosed in the audited books of accounts. However once the indirect expenses have been allowed against gross profit earned from contract receipts disclosed in books of account, there was no justification for claiming the same again against remaining contract receipts of Rs 2,43,07,440/- received in cash which are not part of books of account. It would amount to double deduction of same indirect expenses. Therefore for such receipts the AO was justified in adopting the net profit rate @ 13%. The submission of the appellant on this account has been found without any merit. Accordingly addition of Rs. 32,52,441/- mace by the AO is restricted to Rs.7,29,223/- (13% of Rs 2,43,07,440/- as reduced by 10% of Rs 2,43,07,440/- already disclosed by the appellant in its ITR]. Ground of appeal no. 2 is hereby partly allowed.” 7. Against the aforesaid findings and the order of the ld CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that there is no dispute on the quantum of receipts taxable in the hands of the assessee company and the limited dispute relates to application of net profit rate. It was submitted that as per the findings of the Ld. CIT(A), which are not under challenge by the Revenue, after considering the indirect expenses and reducing the same from gross margin of 13%, the ld CIT(A) has held that the net profit rate for the year under consideration work out to 3.45% whereas the assessee has already declared net profit rate of 10%. It was submitted that in light of the said finding, there is no basis for the Ld. CIT(A) to uphold the action of the AO in applying 13% net profit rate on part of the contract receipts in the hands of assessee. 9. In this regard, our reference was drawn to submissions made by the assessee before the ld CIT(A) which forms part of the impugned order and the contents thereof read as under: 25. These grounds are regarding the addition of 32,52,441/- on account of the 3% addition to profit margin on the gross receipts of Rs. 10,84,14,721/- offered by the appellant suo moto, in the revised return and regarding the addition of Rs. 4,50,000/- (included in 6 addition of Rs. 19,50,000)on account of the 3% addition profit margin on the receipts of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. 26. As already explained above, the appellant is engaged in the business of construction contracts. In the said business, the appellant does not carry-on construction activities on its own account, but undertake construction contracts for the customers. The customers, which mainly comprise of land/house owners, engage the appellant to complete new/renovate residential buildings on the land/old houses owned by such customers. The appellant is thus, it would be appreciated, just a service provider helping the land/house owner(s) in construction of their houses. 27. It is an admitted fact by the Ld. AO in para 7.2 of the assessment order that as part of the aforesaid service contract, the appellant is to purchase material and engage labour, for and on behalf of the customers, with an understanding of earning margin of 10- 20% on such total cost of construction and only such margin is the receipt of the appellant and not the whole construction cost or payments received from the client. Accordingly, the Ld. AO made the addition on account of the alleged effective net profit @ 13% computed as under: Particulars Gross profit ratio where margin is charged @ 10% Gross Profit ratio where margin is charged @ 15% Gross Profit ratio where margin is charged @ 20% Cost of construction 100 100 100 Margin on above 10 15 20 Total Amount receivable 110 115 120 Profit Margin Ratio 10*100/110 =9.09% 15*100/115 = 13.04% 20*100/120 =16.67% Average of the above profit margin ratio = (9.09 + 13.04 +16.67)/3 = 12.93% (Approx. 13%) 28. Therefore, the Ld. AO computed the income of the appellant @ 13% of the total construction cost /Work done by considering the same net profit earned by the appellant whereas the appellant offered the income @ 10% of the total construction cost /Work done as the net Profit of the appellant for the year under consideration on the basis of the seized material. 29. In view of the above as well as the assessment order it is clear beyond any shadow of doubt that the Ld. AO himself agreed that in the case of the appellant only net profit has to be added and neither the gross profit nor the total receipts can be added in the case of the appellant. The only issue remains is that the Ld. AO did not compute the net profit correctly. The amount computed by the Ld. AO @ 13% is the gross profit and not the net profit. 30. Gross profit represents the income or profit remaining after the production costs have been subtracted from revenue. On the other hand, net income is the profit that remains after all expenses and costs including production cost, administration cost, selling cost, general overheads, employees cost, business promotion cost, borrowing cost, Depreciation etc. have been subtracted from revenue. 31. In the case of the appellant, it is an undisputed fact that out of total construction cost/work done, the receipt/income pertains to the appellant is just 10-20% margin on such construction cost/work done. Accordingly, gross profit of the appellant for the year is 9.09% to 16.67% average of which comes to 13% as computed above. Therefore, 13% is the gross profit of the appellant and not the net profit. 7 32. Now for computing net profit the indirect expense/indirect cost must have been reduced from the gross profit. From perusal of the audited P&L Account of the appellant for the year ended 31/03/2013 it is found that apart from direct cost, i.e., cost of material consumed, purchase of stock and change in inventory, the appellant also incurred the following indirect expenses, essential for running the business of the appellant: Finance Cost - Rs. 72,41,347/- Depreciation - Rs. 19,50,058/- Other Expenses - Rs. 11,60,013/- Total - Rs. 1,03,51,418/- 33. It is an important fact that these expenses were neither doubted by the Ld. AO nor any incriminating document was found during the course of search regarding the above- stated expenses of Rs. 1,03,51,418/-. Also, these expenses are duly allowable as these are the essential business expenditures which are mandatory and unavoidable for running the business of the appellant. 34. Also, in para 7.1 of the assessment order the Ld. AO mentioned that COMPLETE BILLS AND VOUCHERS OF EXPENSES , WHICH HAVE BEEN CLAIMED TO BE INCURRED BY THE SITE OWNER DIRECTLY, ARE NOT MAINTAINED WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THEREFORE, THESE BILLS AND VOUCHERS ARE NOT AVAILABLE FOR VERIFICATION. THUS, THE GENUINENESS AND ALLOWABILITY OF THESE EXPENSES, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN ROUTED THROUGH THE P&L ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, VIS -A-VIS PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT ARE NOT OPEN TO VERIFICATION. In this observation also, the Ld. AO categorically stated that the genuineness and allowability of the bills and vouchers of expenses, which have been claimed to be incurred by the site owner directly and not routed through the P&L A/c were not open for verification. The Ld. AO did not give any of such observation for the above stated expenses claimed by the appellant in its P&L A/c. This further proves that the Ld. AO himself was satisfied with the genuineness and allowability of the above-stated expenses of Rs. 1,03,51,418/- claimed in the P&L A/c of the appellant. 35. Therefore, for the purpose of computing the net income of the appellant, the above-stated expenses of Rs. 1,03,51,418/- have to be reduced from the gross margin/profit. Accordingly net profit/income of the appellant is computed as under: Particulars Amount(Rs.) Total construction cost/work done by the appellant during the year under consideration including margin (as per books and as per seized material) A 10,84,14,721 Gross Margin on such construction cost/work done @ 13% B [A*13%] 1,40,93,914 Gross Profit for the year B 1,40,93,914 Less: Expenses claimed in P&L A/c other than the direct cost (as discussed above) C 1,03,51,418 (Net Profit / Loss) of the company D[B-C] 37,42,496 Net profit ratio of the company at total construction work including margin D/A*100 3.45% 36. In view of the above, on the basis of material available on record, it is clear that the net profit ratio of the appellant for the year under consideration is 3.45% but still just to buy a peace of mind, the appellant itself offered net profit/income @ 10%, i.e., Rs. 1,08,41,472/- which is much more than the actual net profit/income of the appellant. 8 37. Also, it is an important fact that the appellant claimed just 3% (13%-10%) of the revenue as its indirect cost/ Indirect expenses. whereas the actual indirect cost ratio of the appellant company is much higher than the expenditure claimed by the appellant. The same is computed as under: AY Revenue from Operations Total Indirect Cost Indirect cost Ratio 2013-14 8,41,07,284 1,03,51,418 12% 2014-15 12,14,50,954 56,73,062 5% 2015-16 16,96,66,878 15,10,804 3% 2016-17 12,46,16,466 82,54,675 7% 2017-18 12,61,02,136 99,53,982 8% 2018-19 9,63,84,756 1,18,76,109 12% 2019-20 13,37,89,680 1,04,61,134 8% 38. From the above chart it is evident that the Indirect cost ratio is ranging between 3% to 12% against which the appellant claimed the lowest percentage, i.e., 3%. 10. It was accordingly, submitted that it is limited prayer of the assessee that the net profit rate of 10% is well above the net profit rate as held by the Ld. CIT(A) at 3.45% and therefore on the total contract receipts, the net profit rate of 10% already declared by the assessee be accepted and necessary relief be provided to the assessee. 11. Per contra, the Ld. CIT DR has supported the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted that the assessee has already been provided sufficient relief by the Ld. CIT(A)and therefore given the facts and circumstances of the present case, no further relief is warranted in the instant case. It was accordingly, submitted that the grounds of appeal so taken by the assessee be dismissed and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be confirmed. 12. We have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available on record. On perusal of the order so passed by the ld CIT(A), it is noted that there is no difference in the quantification of total contract receipts as determined by the AO and as submitted by the assessee as part of its revised return of income. The assessee has disclosed contract receipts of Rs 8,41,07,284/- as per its books of accounts and there are unaccounted receipts of Rs 2,43,07,437/- thus, total contract receipts as per revised return of income has been offered at Rs 10,84,14,721/- and which has been accepted by the AO. 9 13. In terms of taxability of the aforesaid contract receipts, the assessee has offered the same by applying net profit rate of 10% in its revised return of income whereas the AO has applied profit rate of 13%. Before the ld CIT(A), the assessee has contended that the AO has applied gross profit rate whereas he should have applied net profit rate after allowing for the indirect expenses which are admittedly incurred and duly reflected in the audited books of accounts at Rs 1,03,51,418/-. It was further submitted that where the indirect expenses are taken into consideration, net profit rate on total contract receipts of Rs 10,84,14,721/- works out to 3.45% whereas the assessee has already offered its total contract receipts to tax by applying net profit rate of 10% and being on the higher side, no further additions be made by the AO and the additions so made be directed to be deleted. 14. It is noted that the ld CIT(A) has accepted the contention of the assessee that it had incurred indirect expenses of Rs 1,03,51,418/- as evident from the audited books of accounts and whose genuineness has not been doubted by the AO and after reducing such indirect expenses from gross margin of 13%, net profit rate for the year under consideration works out to 3.45% and thus, the assessee has declared net profit rate of 10% in respect of total contract receipts as against 13% applied by the AO. We therefore find that the ld CIT(A) has accepted the fact that the AO has applied gross profit rate of 13% and since, the assessee is eligible for indirect expenses, the AO should have applied net profit rate which works out to 3.45% however, the assessee has already offered net profit rate of 10%. 15. Having held so, the ld CIT(A) in the subsequent paragraph has gone ahead and bifurcated the contract receipts in terms of contract receipts as per books of accounts and contract receipts which were not part of the books of accounts. And thereafter, the ld CIT(A) has held that the AO was not justified in not allowing indirect expenses from gross profit rate in respect contract receipts 10 as per books of accounts and has upheld net profit rate of 10% in respect of contract receipts of Rs 8,41,07,284/- as per books of accounts which is not in dispute before us. 16. The limited dispute that arises relates to application of net profit rate on contract receipts of Rs 2,43,07,440/- which were not part of the books of accounts but very much offered to tax as part of the revised return of income. As per ld CIT(A), where the assessee has been allowed the benefit of indirect expenses against the declared contract receipts, there is no basis for allowing the benefit of indirect expenses again against the contract receipts outside the books of accounts as the same would amount to double deduction and has thus, upheld the application of profit rate of 13% as against 10% declared by the assessee. 17. Conceptually, there is no dispute that the assessee can be allowed the benefit of indirect expenses only once while working out its taxable income. However, when the same principle is applied to the facts of the present case, we find that the net profit rate of 3.45% has been determined as a percentage of the total contract receipts of Rs 10,84,14,721/- which includes both types of contract receipts which are reflected in the books of account to the tune of Rs 8,41,07,284 and Rs 2,43,07,440/- which are not reflected in the books of accounts. Where the net profit rate is determined as a percentage of the contract receipts of Rs 8,41,07,284, it will shown net profit rate of 0.69% after allowing indirect expenses of Rs 1,03,51,418/- and net profit rate of 13% as a percentage of contract receipts of Rs 2,43,07,440/- without allowing any double deduction for indirect expenses. We therefore find that there is no double deduction of indirect expenses while determining net profit rate of 3.45% and given that the assessee has already offered net profit rate of 10% on total contract receipts, no further addition is required to be made in the hands of the 11 assessee. Thus, the addition so sustained by the ld CIT(A) amounting to Rs 7,29,223/- is hereby directed to be deleted. ITA Nos. 87/Chd/2023 To 92/Chd/2023 for the A.Y’s 2014-15 to 2019-20 18. Both the parties fairly submitted that the facts and circumstances in all these appeals are exactly identical and similar contentions as advanced in case of ITA no. 86/CHD/2023 be considered. Therefore, considering the submissions made by both the parties, our findings and directions contained in ITA No. 86/CHD/2023 shall apply mutatis mutandis to these appeals. The net profit rate of 10% across the total contract receipts is accepted and the addition over and above as so challenged before us in terms of Rs 16,75,123/- for A.Y 2014-15, Rs 16,54,155/- for A.Y 2015-16, Rs 10,02,096/- for A.Y 2016-17, Rs 10,91,002/- for A.Y 2017-18, Rs 15,22,386/- for A.Y 2018-19, Rs 16,87,374/- for A.Y 2019-20 is hereby directed to be deleted. 19. In the result, all these appeals are allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26/07/2023 Sd/- Sd/- आकाश द प जैन #व$म &संह यादव (AAKASH DEEP JAIN) ( VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) उपा य / VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सद+य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AG Date: 26/07/2023 आदेश क! त,ल-प अ.े-षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent 3. आयकर आय ु /त/ CIT 4. आयकर आय ु /त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. -वभागीय त न4ध, आयकर अपील&य आ4धकरण, च7डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड फाईल/ Guard File आदेशान ु सार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar
Mehul